ORDER : B.N. Agrawal and G.S. Singhvi, JJ. Civil Appeal No. 4064 of 2004 1. By orders dated 24-7-2007, S.D. Bandi v. Karnataka SRTC, (2011) 15 SCC 718 and 19-9-2007, S.D. Bandi v. Karnataka SRTC, (2011) 15 SCC 702 the Union of India and the Governments of all the States and Union Territories were directed to consider the desirability of making amendment in Section 441 of the Penal Code, 1860, in line with the State amendments made by the States of Orissa and Uttar Pradesh. They were further directed to consider the desirability of making amendment in the schedule of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and to make unauthorised occupation of public premises as non-bailable offence. 2. Mr A. Sharan, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the Union of India, submitted that the stand of the Union of India, as per its response, is that there is no necessity to amend the law as the number of unauthorised occupants is very small. Seeing the attitude of the Union of India, majority of the State Governments have also shown disinclination to make appropriate amendment. Of course, the Union Territories have no option but to tow the line of the Union of India. 3. In our view, in the backdrop of galloping trend of unauthorised occupation of public premises, the stand of the Centre and the States is condemnable. The Governments have not been able to control the growing tendency of unauthorised occupation of public premises. They do not take timely steps under the existing law and the authorities entrusted with the task of ensuring eviction of unauthorised occupants act in a leisurely manner. It appears that the Governments have no control over the statutory authorities and cases instituted under the relevant Acts are dragged for years together. Only when the court gives command, the authorities concerned are forced to decide the cases within a specified time-frame. This is reflective of unwillingness on the part of the executive machinery of the States to take urgent measures for getting the unauthorised occupation of public premises vacated. 4. In view of the above, we feel that no useful purpose would be served by pursuing the issue of amendment of the statutes any further. Accordingly, the matter regarding amendment in Section 441 of the Penal Code, 1860, and in the schedule of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is dropped. 5. 4. In view of the above, we feel that no useful purpose would be served by pursuing the issue of amendment of the statutes any further. Accordingly, the matter regarding amendment in Section 441 of the Penal Code, 1860, and in the schedule of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is dropped. 5. Place the matter on 7-8-2008 to consider as to in what manner the case should proceed further. IA No. 4 filed by the State of Rajasthan regarding Bikaner House 6. Place the interlocutory application on 7-8-2008. 7. Let a copy of this order be made over to the Amicus, Shri Ranjit Kumar, Senior Advocate of this Court.